How I Got Fired From a D.C. Think Tank for Fighting Against the
Power
of Google.

Google told a reporter in 2011 that web sites without "+1" buttons
would be punished with lower search rankings. When she published a
story in Forbes about that, Google pressured Forbes to take it down.

Nonfree software required

A nonfree program submits the users to the power of the program's
developer. This is an injustice
to the user. Alas, most Google services require running nonfree
code.

Even making a Google account requires running nonfree software
(Javascript sent by the site).

Google Docs requires nonfree
Javascript code to edit a document, or even to look at one with
the usual URL. It may be possible to merely look at some kinds of
documents without running the nonfree Javascript code, through a
different URL, but I don't know.

Around 2011, Google Maps worked without running Javascript code. Then
something broke: the page worked fine except that the map did not
appear.

For my own freedom's sake, I do not run the nonfree software
currently required to view anything on Youtube. I advise you to
refuse likewise; what's directly at stake is your own freedom.

For the sake of everyone else's freedom, it is my duty not to post
anything on Youtube, or refer people to anything on Youtube. I hope
you feel the same, and that you join me in refusing.

You can post an audio or video file on your own web site. Just put
up the WebM file and link to it as if it were an ordinary page.
All browsers can handle that.

In general, most Google services require running nonfree
Javascript code. If you refuse to run that (for instance, by running
LibreJS), you'll see that you should not use those services.

Google censored installation of Samsung's ad-blocker, saying that blocking ads is "interference" with the sites that advertise (and surveil users through ads).

The ad-blocker is proprietary software, just like the program
(Google Play) that Google used to deny access to install it. I would
refuse to have either of them on my
computer. Using
a nonfree program gives the owner power over you, and Google has
exercised that power.

Surveillance

To identify yourself to a Google service is a grave error.

Gmail
was planned from the start as a massive surveillance system, to make
psychological profiles not only of Gmail users but of everyone who
sends mail to Gmail users.

Merely asking users' "consent" for this is not enough to legitimize it.
We know that most users have given up on reading just what they are
"consenting" to, and the reason is that they are accustomed to being
told, "If you want to use this service, you must consent to blah blah
blah."

To truly protect people's privacy, we must stop Google from getting
this personal information in the first place!

Terms of Service

Google cuts off accounts for users that resell Pixel phones.
They lose access to all of their mail and documents stored
in Google servers under that account.

It should be illegal to put any "terms of service" on a physical
product. It should also be illegal to close an account on a service
without letting the user download whatever was stored there.

These events provide another reason why schools must never ask
a student to use a service account linked to the student's name.